...
首页> 外文期刊>Current Sustainable/Renewable Energy Reports >Waste to Energy – Energy Recovery of Green Bin Waste: Incineration/Biogas Comparison
【24h】

Waste to Energy – Energy Recovery of Green Bin Waste: Incineration/Biogas Comparison

机译:废物转化为能源–绿色垃圾废物的能量回收:焚化/沼气比较

获取原文

摘要

This study presents how to determine marginal incinerator energy efficiencies. This concept should be applied in assessments of the treatment of specific waste streams to create a level playing field when comparing different technologies, for instance in life-cycle assessments. The marginal efficiencies depend on the technical level, the surrounding energy system, and the waste type/heating value. The concept of marginal efficiency is?in this article applied to the treatment of green bin waste. The thermal treatment options considered are incineration and anaerobic digestion with biogas combustion in a reciprocating gas engine. The comparison is made only with regard to energy yield. The comparison is carried out for three different types of energy systems: power producing, combined heat and power, and combined heat and power with flue gas condensation. For a power-only energy system, the electrical efficiency of anaerobic digestion is found to be comparable to incineration. However, for an energy system with district heating as an option, the energy recovery of incineration is much higher than biogas. Furthermore, if the waste heat recovery technology flue gas condensation is?used, the total efficiency of incineration is almost twice as high as the biogas technology, with the same boundary conditions applied. Although this study produces specific figures of energy recovery yields for a number of different scenarios for incineration and biogas?production, the aim of the study is not a technology comparison as such. A proper technology comparison, including life-cycle assessments, should deal with many other issues than just energy recovery, for instance, other environmental factors, initial cost, operating and maintenance costs, and commercial aspects. However, this study does show that when undertaking such technology assessments, it is crucial to the results that: ? Proper and relevant boundary conditions are applied: if district heating is possible, this changes results dramatically. Optimally, a specific site should form the basis for a comparison. ? Energy recovery efficiencies must be linked to the actual waste steam considered. For green bin waste, this study has shown that margin efficiencies of up to 125?% can be achieved. This is much higher than efficiencies reported in the literature (95?%) [1?, 2?]. Therefore, one main conclusion is that efficiencies used for comparisons of technology must be waste-type (and calorific-value) specific to obtain reliable results in the comparisons.
机译:这项研究提出了如何确定边际焚化炉的能源效率。在比较不同技术时,例如在生命周期评估中,应将这一概念应用于对特定废物流处理的评估中,以创造一个公平的竞争环境。边际效率取决于技术水平,周围的能源系统以及废物类型/热值。边际效率的概念在本文中适用于绿色垃圾桶的处理。所考虑的热处理方案是在往复式燃气发动机中进行沼气燃烧的焚化和厌氧消化。仅在能量产量方面进行比较。针对三种不同类型的能源系统进行了比较:发电,热电联产以及烟气冷凝的热电联产。对于仅用电的能源系统,厌氧消化的电效率可与焚化媲美。但是,对于以区域供热为选择的能源系统,焚化的能量回收率要远远高于沼气。此外,如果使用废热回收技术烟气冷凝,那么在相同的边界条件下,焚化的总效率几乎是沼气技术的两倍。尽管本研究针对焚烧和沼气生产的许多不同方案得出了具体的能量回收率数据,但该研究的目的并不是进行技术比较。适当的技术比较,包括生命周期评估,不仅应解决能源回收问题,还应解决许多其他问题,例如其他环境因素,初始成本,运营和维护成本以及商业方面。但是,这项研究确实表明,在进行此类技术评估时,对结果至关重要:施加适当和相关的边界条件:如果可能进行区域供热,则这种变化会显着改变。最佳情况下,应该将特定的站点作为比较的基础。 ?能量回收效率必须与考虑的实际废蒸汽联系在一起。对于绿色垃圾箱,这项研究表明可以实现高达125%的保证金效率。这远高于文献报道的效率(95%)[1,2]。因此,一个主要结论是,用于技术比较的效率必须特定于废物类型(和发热量),才能在比较中获得可靠的结果。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号